Juries: Fact Finders

Learning Objectives

• Describe types of offences and those heard by juries in Canada.
• Describe the jury selection process.
• Distinguish among the characteristics, responsibilities, and functions of Canadian jurors.
• Describe how we study juror and jury behaviour.
• Outline the stages to reaching a jury verdict.
• Describe the categories of variables examined to predict a verdict.

Types of Offences in Canada

In Canada, criminal cases are classified into three types of offences:

1. Summary Offences:
   • Punishable by less than six months in prison.
   • Fines of less than $2000 (s. 787[1] of the Criminal Code).
   • Tried by a judge alone; no right to a jury trial.
2. Indictable Offences:
   • More serious cases, can be tried by a judge and jury.
   • Categories:
     • Less serious (e.g., theft) heard by a judge alone (s. 553).
     • Serious offences like treason and murder are mandatory to be tried by jury.
     • For some offences, defendants may choose trial by judge or jury.
3. Hybrid Offences:
   • Punishable by up to five years in prison if proceeded by indictment or 6 months if summarily.
   • Crown decides if the case proceeds as summary or indictable.

Jury Selection Process in Canada

• Governed by the Juries Act - provides guidelines for eligibility and selection.
• Prospective jurors receive a jury summons to appear. Failing to comply may lead to penalties.
• Eligibility criteria can vary by province (e.g., age, occupational exemptions).
• Typically, criminal juries in Canada consist of 12 members.
• Changes to how jurors can be challenged:
  • Peremptory challenges (removed under Bill C-75): lawyers could reject jurors without reason.
  • Challenges for cause: requires a valid reason presented by the lawyer.
  • Now decided by the judge under Bill C-75.
• Limited information about jurors is available to lawyers, mostly their name, occupation, and demeanor.

Characteristics and Responsibilities of Juries

Fundamental Characteristics (R. v. Sherratt, 1991):

1. Representativeness: Jury must reflect the community where the crime occurred.
   • Drawn from local voter rolls or telephone directories.
   • Challenges might be raised if the jury is unrepresentative (e.g. based on gender or race).
2. Impartiality: Jurors must judge based solely on admissible evidence without bias.
   • Must avoid influence from prior knowledge about the defendant or pretrial media coverage.
   • Connection to the defendant may lead to disqualification.

Studying Juror and Jury Behaviour

Research Methodologies:

1. Post-Trial Interviews: Understanding juror decisions after trials. In Canada, this is restricted.
2. Archives: Analyzing trial transcripts to discover patterns and relationships without establishing causality.
3. Simulation: Mimicking trials to analyze juror responses, yields high internal validity but may not represent real jury dynamics.
4. Field Studies: Involves real jurors, allows for observation of behaviour in situ but is difficult to conduct due to legal restrictions.

Stages of Reaching a Jury Verdict

1. Listening to Evidence: Jurors listen to admissible evidence; proposals for allowing note-taking or asking questions for better understanding are examined.
2. Deliberation: Closed discussion among jury members to contemplate the evidence and reach a verdict. Structure and biases can affect the process (e.g., polarization or leniency bias).
3. Final Verdict: Must be unanimous; if not reachable, considered a hung jury.

Variables in Predicting Verdicts

• Demographic variables: Age, gender, socio-economic status can influence decisions but relations are often inconsistent.
• Personality traits: Authoritarianism and dogmatism may correlate with a tendency to render guilty verdicts.
• Attitudes: Specific attitudes related to case topics (e.g., rape myths, capital punishment) show predictive power in verdict outcomes.
• Defendant characteristics: Previous criminal record, attractiveness etc. affect juror decisions.
• Victim characteristics: In cases of sexual assault, the perceived credibility of victims can significantly influence jury decisions, at times being unfairly affected by past sexual history.
• Expert testimony: Complexity and coherence of expert evidence plays a crucial role, with jurors sometimes processing gender biases regarding expert credibility.

Summary

• Jury process is integral in the justice system influencing outcomes through structured methods while facing numerous biases and challenges.